Date:         Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:30:16 -0700
Reply-To:     Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject:      Re: 666 torque, say no more - NVC  ;^D
Comments: To: David Beierl <dbeierl@attglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=response

Fine if you don't quite agree with me ......
but I don't understand this part .....

"This is a radial engine that barely fits into a little car -- it's
> looking at something like four feet of propeller diameter, undoubtedly
> three or four bladed.


In or on the little car ? or on the aircraft.
I suspect a ......how many liters was it  ? ........huge engine, 360 hp
.........
it would have more than a 4 foot diameter propeller for sure  ! I'd think.

more like 10 feet in diameter would be my guess.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Beierl" <dbeierl@attglobal.net>
To: "Scott Daniel - Turbovans" <scottdaniel@turbovans.com>
Cc: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 666 torque, say no more - NVC ;^D


> At 05:33 PM 7/10/2009, Scott Daniel  - Turbovans wrote:
>>it's so understressed in that little car .......
>>the engine probably never puts out more than about 1/3rd of what it
>>can......
>
> Good points, all.  I have to quarrel a bit with the following, though:
>
>>I would have to say that most aircraft engines with propellers on them
>>depend on ram-air cooling from the front .........
>>and that the hub area and the root area of the propeller blades don't
>>provide much air-cooling to the engine at all.
>
> This is a radial engine that barely fits into a little car -- it's looking
> at something like four feet of propeller diameter, undoubtedly three or
> four bladed.
>
>
>  --
> David Beierl - Providence RI USA -- http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
> '89 Po' White Star "Scamp"